The latest outrage involving the ACLU, covered by columnist Gregory J.
Hand in Enter Stage Right (7/2), is the rescinding
of an invitation to Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas to debate ACLU President
Nadine Strossen at the Davis-Levin First Amendment Conference in Hawaii
this summer. Not by any means an isolated incident, this is the latest
in a long tradition of outrages going back to the founding of the organization
and should be viewed in that context. A brief examination of the Communist
background of the ACLU sheds light on an agenda that seems to champion
isolated portions of the Constitution for self-serving purposes. They
often take the Constitution out of context so as to champion strange cases
that seem to favor an outcome that reinforces authoritarian government
control. They more often than not favor the dictatorial concept of appointed
Judges creating legislation from the bench.

Daphne Barbee-Wooten, wrote to her fellow directors on the Hawaii ACLU
board the following regarding Thomas;

"Faye Kennedy, Eric Ferrer and I are the only African-Americans
in the Hawaii ACLU chapter...We strongly object to ACLU bringing and
sponsoring Clarence Thomas to Hawaii... Bringing Clarence Thomas sends
a message that the Hawaii ACLU promotes and honors black Uncle Toms
who turn their back on civil rights."

"Uncle Tom," was an old Communist term to describe any African-American
who either opposed the Communist agenda or who had become "bourgeois,"
or, heaven forbid, economically successful. This is exactly what Barbee-Wooten
meant by calling the Supreme Court Justice an Uncle Tom. This unctuous
hypocrite has, no doubt, benefited more than amply from the economic system
she seeks to tear down for others, particularly for members of her own
race. How ironic that Barbee-Wooten would be making decisions over a first
amendment conference, presumably, dealing with free speech issues. Ironic
for the rest of us, no problem for the dialectical left.

Fellow board member Eric Ferrer, while discussing the Thomas invitation,
called Thomas "an anti-Christ, a Hitler." As an American, and
as a Jew, I am offended by a comparison of Clarence Thomas to Hitler.
Such idiocy requires no further comment. What's interesting, however,
is the hysterical hate this man expresses for what Thomas represents which
are American ideals of achievement and success. Like his ACLU colleague,
he must be consumed with an unbending hatred for this Republic of ours,
a Republic that has afforded him a standard of living that, no doubt,
most of the rest of us could only dream of achieving.

Anarchist Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1919, after his release from
prison where he served a sentence for draft evasion, at a party attended
by Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley. In 1920, Rev.
Harry Ward, the Red Dean of the Union Theological Seminary was Chairman,
Baldwin was director, and Communist publisher Louis Budenz, who would
later go on to testify against Communism, director of publicity. Other
Communist and radical founders included William Z. Foster, author of "Toward
Soviet America," Harold J. Laski, Morris Hilquit, A.J.Muste, Scott
Nearing, Eugene V. Debs, and John Dewey. The 1930's membership would include
such radicals and change agents as Vito Marcantonio, Haywood Broun, Corliss
Lamont, and Bishop G. Bromley Oxnan. The 1940's roll would include George
S. Counts, Norman Cousins, Melvyn Douglas, Robert M. Hutchins, and Freda
Kirchwey. Most prominent American luminaries of the left were, and are,
members of the ACLU.

On January 17, 1931, the Special House (of Representatives) Committee
to Investigate Communist Activities in the United States issued a report
which stated the following:

"The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with
the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90% of its efforts
are on behalf of Communists who have come into conflict with the law.
It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly; but
it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt
to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to
overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag with a red flag
and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of
government guaranteed to each State by the Federal Constitution...Roger
N. Baldwin, its guiding spirit, makes no attempt to hide his friendship
for the communists and their principles"

In 1935, Baldwin wrote the following in his college yearbook:

"I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with
international radical activities...and have traveled in the United States
to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My
chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and
violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has
brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment...Therefore,
I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of
the State itself...I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition
of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism is the goal."

Space won't allow further examination of the mountains of fascinating
material regarding the ACLU, so a follow-up article would be in the offing
at a future date. Suffice it to say that there is no reason to assume
that the principles and goals of the ACLU, set in place by its founders,
have changed much over the years. They have simply become much more polished
and cagey in their presentation. This most recent insult to our Supreme
Court Justice, and, clearly, to our form of government, is a clear example
of the mask temporarily slipping off to reveal a glimpse of the true face
of the ACLU.

Chuck Morse is the
author of "Why I'm a Right-Wing Extremist" to be released in
September.

Other related articles: (open in a new window)

The
hypocrisy of the ACLU by Dr. Jeremy Blanks (July 3, 2000)
The American Civil Liberties Union deserves praise for some of the fights
they've undertaken on behalf of the U.S. Constitution, but their position
on the Second Amendment is purely hypocritical, writes Dr. Jeremy Blanks